This thread is about as meaningless as a Mike Gravel thread... at getting sour with chomsky because he fundamentally disagrees with Paul on a number of topics...must be because he's jealous of the attention :doh: ::
who's getting angry at chomsky? i was just pointing out where his perspective come from and my opinion of it.
Are you fucking kidding me? That was the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever seen. Geez man, do you even watch the videos you post. For starters, Ron Paul is barely in it. :doh: And when he is in it, HE'S BEING INTERVIEWED BY A FOUNDATION RUN BY A FUCKING HEALTHCARE COMPANY!!! :doh: It was done on Microsoft Movie Maker :doh: It barely addresses his actual stance on healthcare at all and barely touches on it in the FOURTH FUCKING VIDEO! :doh: In the end, Ron Paul's stance is as follows; and since Petre posted this video instead of giving me something more concrete, we have to assume that he believes this as well: Ron Paul will fix the economy.:doh: Spend an estimated 400 billion dollars (obviously more) to start his "program.":doh: You will then have more money to invest into your own medical savings plan if you want.:doh: Let the healthcare and pharmacudical(sp) corporations continue to operate, but in a free market system where the prices will go down ....and I quote...."JUST LIKE THE CELL PHONE COMPANIES DO IT. IT WORKED FOR THEM.":doh:
Arben .... Perhaps you like Hillary's plan more where you'll have healthcare whether you like it or not and if you don't like it ... your wages will be garnished. I posted the video's because it was simple and relevant and IMO probably beyond mosts attention span ... forget about reading about it. :doh: Here ... here's more on his positions ... and let me add ... though you may not like them , they absolutely make the most sense. ------------- <table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td> <center> Ron Paul on Health Care </center> Republican Representative (TX-14) </td></tr></tbody></table> <!-- End Section Head_Popup_after_ad --> <center> Insurance companies & gov't make healthcare unaffordable </center> Q: You say that insurance companies and government programs have made health care simply unaffordable. You objected so strongly to Medicaid that, as a doctor, I'm told, you simply treated patients on your own, at your own expense. A: Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy. Nobody seems to be happy--except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs. <center> Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007 </center> <center> Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare </center> We have a mess because a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year, and we have a foreign policy that is draining us. I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit. <center> Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007 </center> <center> Socialized medicine won't work; nor managed care </center> You don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It's the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high. It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices. <center> Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007 </center> <center> Managed care is expensive and hasn't worked </center> Q: What does your health care plan contain to address racial disparities in access to care?A: We've had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn't worked well. It's very, very expensive, and it's the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it's a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That's not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications. <center> Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007 </center> <center> Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage </center> Q: Nations with socialized medicine reduced the cost of their healthcare systems by restricting patients' access that needed treatments and healthcare rationing. Will you protect the availability of needed medical care by opposing current efforts to subject Americans to government-mandated health insurance and universal coverage? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. <center> Source: [Xref Huckabee] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007 </center> <center> Not government's role to protect people like Terri Schiavo </center> Q: My name is Bobby Schindler, and I'm with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation. My beloved sister Terri Schiavo was starved & dehydrated to death, in the land of abundance. The world watched because she was disabled & unable to speak for herself. Would you support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled & vulnerable people from having their food & water taken away? HUCKABEE:Yes. TANCREDO:Yes. COX:Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: No. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES:Yes. <center> Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007 </center> <center> Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity </center> Q: Healthcare consumes up to 17% of our GNP. It appears that lifestyles that are based in moral principles would reduce healthcare expenditures. Would you support a private healthcare approach that rewards behavior that promotes moral lifestyles-- that is, avoiding alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as obesity reduction, exercise and nutrition that promotes health? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. <center> Source: [Xref Huckabee] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007 </center> <center> Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. </center> Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007. Proponents support voting YES because: Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]: It terminates the coverage of childless adults. It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000. It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered. Opponents recommend voting NO because: Rep. DEAL: This bill [fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed: On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to obtain SCHIP benefits? No. On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't go to cover adults. On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.
Veto message from President Bush: Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation. <center> Reference: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R. 3963 ; vote number 2007-1009 on Oct 25, 2007 </center> <center> Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. </center> Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs. Proponents support voting YES because: This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers. It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule. Opponents support voting NO because: Does ideological purity trump sound public policy? It shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears that ideology would profoundly change the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, but because of ideological opposition to market-based prices. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time under Medicare. Under the guise of negotiation, this bill proposes to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program. The current system trusts the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution. <center> Reference: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act; Bill HR 4 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-023 on Jan 12, 2007 </center> <center> Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. </center> Vote to pass a resolution, agreeing to S. AMDT. 2691 that removes the following provisions from S 1932: Allows hospitals to refuse treatment to Medicaid patients when they are unable to pay their co-pay if the hospital deems the situation to be a non-emergency Excludes payment to grandparents for foster care <center> Reference: Reconciliation resolution on the FY06 budget; Bill H Res 653 on S. AMDT. 2691 ; vote number 2006-004 on Feb 1, 2006 </center> <center> Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. </center> Vote to pass a bill that would limit the awards that plaintiffs and their attorneys could be given in medical malpractice cases. The bill would limit non-economic damages, including physical and emotional pain to $250,000. The bill would also limit punitive damages to $250,000 or double economic damages, whichever amount is greater. Punitive damages would be banned against makers and distributors of medical products if the Food and Drug Administration approved those products. The bill would call for all states to set damage caps but would not block existing state statutory limits. The bill would cap attorneys' contingency fees to 40% of the first $50,000 in damages; 33.3% of the next $50,000; 25% of the next $500,000; and 15% of any amount in excess of $600,000. <center> Reference: Medical Malpractice Liability Limitation bill; Bill HR 4280 ; vote number 2004-166 on May 12, 2004 </center> <center> Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. </center> Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Starting in 2006, prescription coverage would be made available through private insurers to seniors. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of an estimated $35 in 2006. Individuals enrolled in the plan would cover the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves, and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2,250. The government would offer a fallback prescription drug plan in regions were no private plans had made a bid.Over a 10 year time period medicare payments to managed care plans would increase by $14.2 billion. A pilot project would begin in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for doctors and hospitals costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. The importation of drugs from Canada would be approved only if HHS determines there is no safety risks and that consumers would be saving money. <center> Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL; Bill HR.1 ; vote number 2003-669 on Nov 22, 2003 </center> <center> Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. </center> Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill that would call for the Food and Drug Administration to begin a program that would permit the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and South Africa. <center> Reference: Bill sponsored by Gutknecht, R-MN; Bill HR.2427 ; vote number 2003-445 on Jul 24, 2003 </center> <center> Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. </center> Vote to pass a bill that would permit the creation of association health plans through which small companies could group together to buy insurance for their employees. Association health plans that cover employees in several states would be excused from many individual state insurance regulations but would be regulated by the Labor Department. <center> Reference: Small Business Health Fairness Act; Bill HR 660 ; vote number 2003-296 on Jun 19, 2003 </center> <center> Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. </center> Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003: To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system. Limits the availability of punitive damages, and sets a 3-year limit for suing. <center> Reference: Bill sponsored by Greenwood, R-PA; Bill HR 5 ; vote number 2003-64 on Mar 13, 2003 </center>
Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. HR 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act, would institute a new program to provide voluntary prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries through subsidies to private plans. The program would cost an estimated $40 billion over five years and would go into effect in fiscal 2003. Reference: Bill sponsored by Thomas, R-CA; Bill HR 4680 ; vote number 2000-357 on Jun 28, 2000 Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. Vote on HR 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, would ban the use of drugs for physician-assisted suicide. The bill would not allow doctors to give lethal prescriptions to terminally ill patients, and instead promotes "palliative care," or aggressive pain relief techniques. Reference: Bill sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 2260 ; vote number 1999-544 on Oct 27, 1999 Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. The bill allows all taxpayers to create a tax-exempt account for paying medical expenses called a Medical Savings Account [MSA]. Also, the measure would allow the full cost of health care premiums to be taken as a tax deduction for the self-employed and taxpayers who are paying for their own insurance. The bill would also allow the establishment of "HealthMarts," regional groups of insurers, health care providers and employers who could work together to develop packages for uninsured employees. Another provision of the bill would establish "association health plan," in which organizations could combine resources to purchase health insurance at better rates than they could separately. Reference: Bill sponsored by Talent, R-MO; Bill HR 2990 ; vote number 1999-485 on Oct 6, 1999 Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement: * As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000. * WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility; * WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people; * WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and * WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land; 1. BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles: 2. Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens. 3. The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level. Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC3 on Dec 8, 2000 Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. Paul scores 56% by APHA on health issues The American Public Health Association (APHA) is the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health. APHA is concerned with a broad set of issues affecting personal and environmental health, including federal and state funding for health programs, pollution control, programs and policies related to chronic and infectious diseases, a smoke-free society, and professional education in public health. The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position. Source: APHA website 03n-APHA on Dec 31, 2003 Prohibit mandatory mental health screen for students. Paul sponsored prohibiting mandatory mental health screening for students To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program. Introductory statement by Sponsor: Rep. PAUL: This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardian. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. [A Congressional commission] recommends that universal or mandatory mental health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a Federally-funded mental health screener makes the recommendation.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Lowering the Cost of Health Care[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]byRon Paul[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage†– is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else†is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families: [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]August 23, 2006[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Diagnosing Our Health Care Woes[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Ron Paul[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] by Ron Paul[/FONT][/FONT] <!-- Copyright 2001-2002, Clickability, Inc. All rights reserved.--> <script language="javascript1.2" src="http://a449.g.akamai.net/7/449/1776/000/button.clickability.com/10/button_1/button.js"> </script><script language="JavaScript"> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;*</script><nobr></nobr>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]No one disputes the diagnosis: American health care is in lousy shape. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I find the pervasiveness of managed care very troubling.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free†universal health care.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]September 26, 2006[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.[/FONT]
Issue: Health Care “[The Government] is more involved in medicine than many other areas and you see a skyrocketing of prices. †The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster. Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion. Now, the Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines. Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. The unemployed often cannot afford insurance, meaning those who need basic medical attention overcrowd emergency rooms and drive up premiums. The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here. Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats. It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support: Making all medical expenses tax deductible. Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage. Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care. Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA. Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs. By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.
MORE .. Dr. Paul’s Writings On This Issue Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom Free Market Medicine REIMPORTATION OF FDA-APPROVED PHARMACEUTICALS On Introduction of the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000 Medical costs can be cut with freedom More Writings » Issue: Health Freedom Let me know when you get through all this info and then you can get more from DR Paul on how to fix our healthcare mess ... Or you can believe the bullshit of national healthcare provided by the largest debtor nation in the world who's SS fund is in the hole to the tune of $65 TRILLION and on the verge of total bankruptcy ... :doh:
Here's one more for you Arben ... possibly easier to digest , INTERVIEW with Ron Paul on YOU CHOOSE 2008 Ron Paul interview on Healthcare <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjuEdJ0DAGc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjuEdJ0DAGc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Yes, as a matter of fact it finally answers my qestion. Ron Paul has no plan whatsoever for healthcare. For starters, he states the following: Universal Healthcare gets rid of corporations while Paul wants to keep them in business. As I explained earlier, the competition will drive the prices down until there are a handfull of companies that are bigger then the rest. Buyouts start, and all the mid-level companies get bought out and many of the small companies. Then, there will be fake competition while prices are driven back up. The problem is the corporations, just like he admits, yet he still caters to them. Meanwhile, some of the bills he puts forth don't protect the public. Even still, he has no legitimate plan whatsoever, while Hillary has a 16pg .pdf on it. Is Ron Paul actually running a presidential campaign? He's got a bunch of snippets and wannabe soundbytes while the rest, as terrible as they are, actually have substance. Give me a break. He has no real plan. Once again, his plan is as follows... "You will have more money, so that you can put the money away if you want. Meanwhile, these big companies will continue to grow under a system that we call 'free trade'. It's like cell phones!"
http://nolanchart.com/article/chart.php?chart=../images/nolan_chart.png&xLeft=184&xTop=78 Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008 Ron Paul Second in Maine State Delegates with 35% <hr>Romney has 52% of the vote while Paul has secured 35% of the state delegates who will allocate Maine's 18 national delegates in May.<hr>by Gary Wood (Conservative Libertarian) The final State Caucus before Super Tuesday is projected to be won by Governor Mitt Romney based on 74% of the presidential preference poll votes in Mitt Romney has 52%. There's a battle for second place, in popular votes, going on between Ron Paul and John McCain. As of 4:34est the Maine Republican Party website showed there were just 154 votes separating the two with over 25% of the caucus locations still to report in. According to a press release by Jesse Benton, of the Ron Paul campaign, the Texas Congressman, with his message of liberty and freedom, has already picked up 215 of the total 608 Maine state delegates. This number could increase as results come in from the final 6 counties. 35% of the state delegates place him second behind Mitt Romney even though McCain has a slight lead in the popular vote. There is no way for John McCain to catch Ron Paul in state delegate count even if he holds on to his slim lead in polling simply based on cities and caucus locations already won by Ron Paul Although many major newspapers are giving all 18 Maine National Delegates to Mitt Romney that is not the case. State delegates in Maine are non-binding. The actual allocation of the 18 national delegates will not be determined until May 2 when the Maine Republican Party State Convention is going to be held and the state delegates will then decide. "Ron Paul's strong second place finish in Maine, in which he beat John McCain, is proof that this race is far from over," said Ron Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. "We'll continue to battle for every delegate in this wide-open race for the Republican nomination."
Ron Paul Finishes Second in Maine Caucus February 5, 2008 ron_paul_maine.jpg (Long Island, N.Y.) Three days before Super Tuesday, Texas Representative Ron Paul gained steam in his bid for the Oval Office by placing second to Mitt Romney in the Republican GOP nominations for the state of Maine and ahead of Senator John McCain in garnering over 35% of the votes. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney logged 52% of the total votes to win the state. “In the last weeks, I was sure it was Ron Paul,†said Julie Ann O’Brien, executive director of the Maine Republican Party. “But in the last three to five days, both of the Republican candidates Romney and McCain really kicked into gear and got people up here.†10-term Texas Congressman Ron Paul was the only candidate who personally campaigned in the state of Maine and drew tremendous support from local groups as well as the business sector from the area. In the last quarter of the year 2007, Ron Paul amassed over $20 Million of funding for his campaign and was the highest and most successful Republican fundraiser. This placing by Dr. Ron Paul in Maine’s caucus represents a growing national support for his candidacy and installed new optimism for his supporters and staff coming into the biggest Tuesday of his campaign. Dubbed as the “Tuesday of Destiny†on Feb. 5th, 2008, the Republican GOP nominations will simultaneously hold Primaries and Caucuses in 21 different states including Utah, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, New Jersey, California, Alabama, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, Colorado, Arkansas, Arizona and Alaska. The total size of delegations for Super Tuesday will be 1,081 for all 21 states, a number that will give tremendous advantage to whoever seizes the day. “Ron Paul’s strong second place finish in Maine, in which he beat John McCain, is proof that this race is far from over,†said Ron Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “We’ll continue to battle for every delegate in this wide-open race for the Republican nomination.†Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s win in Maine solidified his spot as a serious contender for the Republican GOP nomination as he closes the gap with Arizona Senator John McCain who was the early favorite after winning on key primaries in Florida and South Carolina in January.
For those of you that still believe the media is fair and unbiased ... CNN as an example rather than updating their page has left it at 68% when McCain was still ahead ... http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=ME Nice.
Same with Aol http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/me/republicans Same with ABC http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=ME&ref=ipb And MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914 But the first news report you posted said only 74% are in.
How is finishing a distant 2nd or 3rd in Maine worthy of a MSM coverup? Maine is meaningless on a day when Paul actual finished behind Guiliani in the popular vote in California. Yep, there's no way the 'secretive elite' can let the news about Maine accidently leak out. That would be devastating. ::
Listen, your fucking problem is that he had the foresight to call it on Kosovo. He could invent a solution to the Energy Crisis and a cure for AIDS, but as long as he badmouths your precious fucking Kosovo you will hate him. Get some FORESIGHT, and then get a FORESKIN.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUs1FAaMNDA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUs1FAaMNDA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWKxwVZmomc&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWKxwVZmomc&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>
Ron Paul is not going away , but as I said in the other thread ... as others drop out , broke or otherwise , RP can take their deligates as knowledge of him grows.With 5.3million in donations this quarter and growing ... unlike some others Ron Paul is NOT going broke and financing his own campaign. The mainstream doesn't want to tell you this but , Paul could easily steal the nomination as others drop out ... DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE thinking he has no chance! Should this go to a brokered convention , the delegates are up for grabs. GO RON PAUL :bears::bears::bears: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Paul National Delegate Count Now 42 or More (2/6/08) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 6, 2008 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – With the results of many of the “Super Tuesday†primaries and caucuses now finalized, the Ron Paul campaign is now projecting that it has at least 42 delegates to the national convention secured. While much of the focus in yesterday’s Super Tuesday contests focused on preference poll numbers, Ron Paul caucus-goers were focused on securing delegates to the national convention. With dedicated supporters and an organization focused purely on securing delegates, the campaign has secured more delegates to the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul than caucus straw polls might otherwise suggest. According to campaign projections, a minimum of 24 delegates were won in yesterday’s contests. When added to projected delegates coming from strong showings in Iowa (4), Nevada (8), Louisiana (3) and Maine (3), that brings the total delegate count to 42 delegates or more. “Our goal has always been to walk into the national GOP convention with as many delegates as possible,†said Ron Paul 2008 campaign manager Lew Moore. “The number of delegates we won yesterday could very well be the difference in a Convention where no one has a first-ballot majority. With Dr. Paul’s home state of Texas coming up, we feel we can enter the convention with a substantial number of delegates.†In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, three Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign at the West Virginia state convention early Tuesday. Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their sizable support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – in exchange for the delegates. According to campaign projections from last night’s results at least 3 delegates were won in Alaska, 5 delegates were won in North Dakota, 9 delegates were won in Minnesota, and 4 delegates were won in Colorado. Additionally the results of the Louisiana Caucus may still change in favor of Ron Paul, where an ongoing legal challenge may result in most of that state’s delegates going towards Ron Paul after state GOP officials violated their own rules to him :blobbox:
Businesswire... [link to www.businesswire.com] Suicide Terrorism Expert Professor Robert Pape Named Ron Paul 2008 Foreign Policy Advisor Ivan Eland, Leon Hadar Also Added to Ron Paul Foreign Policy Team ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today University of Chicago professor Robert Pape has joined the Ron Paul 2008 campaign as a foreign policy advisor. Dr. Pape is the foremost expert on suicide terrorism and the founder of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. He is also the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism and has published numerous articles on suicide terrorism and the use of air power in war. Regarding the campaign, Professor Pape said, “Ron Paul's campaign is making a lasting contribution to the security of the United States and its allies. Indeed, I often tell audiences ‘Ron Paul has the right foreign policy to safeguard America.’†Middle East expert Leon Hadar and national security analyst Ivan Eland have also joined the Ron Paul campaign as foreign policy advisors. Leon Hadar is a Washington-based global affairs analyst whose commentary on U.S. foreign policy has been published in leading newspapers and foreign policy journals. A former UN correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, he is the author of Quagmire: America in the Middle East and Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. Ivan Eland is senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is the author of several books, including The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed.
"The mainstream doesn't want to tell you this but , Paul could easily steal the nomination as others drop out ... DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE thinking he has no chance! Should this go to a brokered convention , the delegates are up for grabs." Petrodamus, if there is a brokered Republican convention I will Paypal you $1000. If there is a brokered convention and Ron Paul wins then I will Paypal everyone here $1000.
